Section 271B of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271B is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 1,993 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271B

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

CIT v. S.K. Gupta & Co.
322 ITR 86 · 2010 · High Court
110
citing judgments

If a penalty is levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of account, then a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB cannot also be levied.

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors
299 ITR 219 · 2008 · High Court
81
citing judgments

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
252 ITR 471 · 2001 · High Court
57
citing judgments

A penalty under sections like 271D or 271E is not automatically imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The interpretation of 'reasonable cause' is that which would prevent a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence from acting negligently or in bad faith.

DIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
365 ITR 560 · 2014 · High Court
56
citing judgments

If a sum is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient, the payer is not obligated to deduct tax at source, and consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made. The Bombay High Court also affirmed that penalty proceedings under section 271B may be quashed in certain circumstances.

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

Bharat Construction Co. v. ITO
153 CTR 414 · 1999 · High Court
49
citing judgments

When an assessee fails to maintain books of account, resulting in a confirmed penalty under section 271A, no additional penalty under section 271B can be levied for the failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB, as there are no accounts to audit.

P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT
416 ITR 336 · 2019 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271B is not leviable for a venial technical breach, such as the late filing of a tax audit report, if there is no mala fide intention and the assessee demonstrates reasonable cause.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Judgments on Section 271B

Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Devbhumi Dwarka vs. ITO WD 1 Dwarka, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 606/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Punjabhai Alabhai Madam, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, 75/1, Vadi Area Bharatpur, Dwarka – 360510, Bhanavad, Nr. Hanuman Mandir, Jamnagar Devbhumi, Dwarka – 360510 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dfjpm4987R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 28.06.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 65,246/- Imposed By The Ld. Ao U/S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 271B

Arup Chatterjee, Maheshtala vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2286/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2286/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arup Chatterjee………………………………………………….....Appellant Uttarpara(W), Maheshtala, South 24 Parganas, W.B-700140. [Pan: Amvpc8144N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,99,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act With The Same Returned Income Of Rs.3,99,920/-. Thereafter, A Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act Was Levied Due To Failure Of The Assessee To Get His Accounts Audited Which Is Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Viewed That The Assessee Was Required To Get Accounts Audited By A Chartered Accountant & Furnish The Audit Report Before The Due Date If The Turnover Exceeds The

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A